TIBET (_continued_)
HISTORY
It is generally stated that Buddhism was first preached in Tibet at
the instance of King Srong-tsan-gam-po[910] who came to the throne in
629 A.D. Some legendary notices of its earlier appearance[911] will
bear the natural interpretation that the Tibetans (like the Chinese)
had heard something about it from either India or Khotan before they
invited instructors to visit them[912].
At this time Tibet played some part in the politics of China and
northern India. The Emperor Harsha and the T'ang Emperor T'ai Tsung
exchanged embassies but a second embassy sent from China arrived after
Harsha's death and a usurper who had seized the throne refused to
receive it. The Chinese with the assistance of the kings of Tibet and
Nepal dethroned him and carried him off captive. There is therefore
nothing improbable in the story that Srong-tsan-gam-po had two wives,
who were princesses of Nepal and China respectively. He was an active
ruler, warlike but progressive, and was persuaded by these two ladies
that Buddhism was a necessary part of civilization. According to
tradition he sent to India a messenger called Thonmi Sanbhota, who
studied there for several years, adapted a form of Indian writing to
the use of his native language and translated the Karaṇḍa Vyûha.
Recent investigators however have advanced the theory that the Tibetan
letters are derived from the alphabet of Indian origin used in Khotan
and that Sanbhota made its acquaintance in Kashmir[913]. Though the
king and his two wives are now regarded as the first patrons of
Lamaism and worshipped as incarnations of Avalokita and Târâ, it does
not appear that his direct religious activity was great or that he
built monasteries. But his reign established the foundations of
civilization without which Buddhism could hardly have flourished, he
to some extent unified Central Tibet, he chose the site of Lhasa as
the capital and introduced the rudiments of literature and art. But
after his death in 650 we hear little more of Buddhism for some
decades.
About 705 King Khri-gtsug-lde-btsan is said to have built monasteries,
caused translations to be made, and summoned monks from Khotan. His
efforts bore little fruit, for no Tibetans were willing to take the
vows, but the edict of 783 preserved in Lhasa mentions his zeal for
religion, and he prepared the way for Khri-sroṇ-lde-btsan in whose
reign Padma-Sambhava, the real founder of Lamaism, arrived in
Tibet[914].
This event is said to have occurred in 747 and the epoch is
noticeable for two reasons. Firstly Tibet, which had become an
important military power, was now brought into contact both in peace
and war with China and Central Asia. It was predominant in the Tarim
Basin and ruled over parts of Ssŭ-chuan and Yunnan. China was
obliged to pay tribute and when it was subsequently refused the
Tibetans sacked the capital, Chang-an. In 783 China made a treaty of
peace with Tibet. The king was the son of a Chinese princess and thus
blood as well as wide experience disposed him to open Tibet to foreign
ideas. But in 747 relations with China were bad, so he turned towards
India and invited to his Court a celebrated Pandit named
Śântarakshita, who advised him to send for Padma-Sambhava.
Secondly this was the epoch when Amogha flourished in China and
introduced the Mantrayâna system or Chên Yen. This was the same form
of corrupt Buddhism which was brought to Tibet and was obviously the
dominant sect in India in the eighth century. It was pliant and
amalgamated easily with local observances, in China with funeral
rites, in Tibet with demonolatry.
At this time Padma-Sambhava was one of the most celebrated exponents
of Tantric Buddhism, and in Tibet is often called simply the Teacher
(Guru or Mahâcârya). His portraits represent him as a man of strongly
marked and rather angry features, totally unlike a conventional monk.
A popular account of his life[915] is still widely read and may
contain some grains of history, though the narrative as a whole is
fantastic. It describes him as born miraculously in Udyâna but as
having studied at Bodhgaya and travelled in many regions with the
intention of converting all the world. According to his plan, the
conversion of his native land was to be his last labour, and when he
had finished his work in Tibet he vanished thither miraculously. Thus
Udyâna is not represented as the source and home of Tantric Buddhism
but as being like Tibet a land of magic and mystery but, like
Tibet, needing conversion: both are disposed to welcome Tantric ideas
but those ideas are elaborated by Padma-Sambhava not in Udyâna but in
Bengal which from other sources we know to have been a centre of
Tantrism.
Some other points of interest in these legends may be noticed.
Padma-Sambhava is not celibate but is accompanied by female
companions. He visits many countries which worship various deities and
for each he has a new teaching suited to its needs. Thus in Tibet,
where the older religion consisted of defensive warfare against the
attacks of evil spirits[916], he assumes the congenial character of a
victorious exorcist, and in his triumphant progress subdues local
demons as methodically as if he were suppressing the guerilla warfare
of native tribes. He has new revelations called Terma which he hides
in caves to be discovered by his successors. These revelations are
said to have been in an unknown language[917]. Those at present
existing are in Tibetan but differ from the canonical scriptures in
certain orthographical peculiarities. The legend thus admits that
Padma-Sambhava preached a non-celibate and magical form of Buddhism,
ready to amalgamate with local superstitions and needing new
revelations for its justification.
He built the monastery of Samye[918] about thirty miles from Lhasa on
the model of Odantapuri in Bengal. Śântarakshita became abbot and
from this period dates the foundation of the order of Lamas[919]. Mara
(Thse Ma-ra) was worshipped as well as the Buddhas, but however
corrupt the cultus may have been, Samye was a literary centre where
many translations were made. Among the best known translators was a
monk from Kashmir named Vairocana[920]. It would appear however that
there was considerable opposition to the new school not only from
the priests of the old native religion but from Chinese
Buddhists[921].
Numerous Tibetan documents discovered in the Tarim basin[922] date
from this period. The absence in them of Buddhist personal names and
the rarity of direct references to Buddhism indicate that though known
in Tibet it was not yet predominant. Buddhist priests (ban-de) are
occasionally mentioned but the title Lama has not been found. The
usages of the Bonpo religion seem familiar to the writers and there
are allusions to religious struggles.
When Padma-Sambhava vanished from Tibet, the legend says that he left
behind him twenty-five disciples, all of them magicians, who
propagated his teaching. At any rate it flourished in the reign of
Ralpachan (the grandson of Khri-sroṇ-lde-btsan). Monasteries
multiplied and received land and the right to collect tithes. To each
monk was assigned a small revenue derived from five tenants and the
hierarchy was reorganized[923]. Many translators were at work in this
period and a considerable part of the present canon was then rendered
into Tibetan. The king's devotion to Buddhism was however unpopular
and he was murdered[924] apparently at the instigation of his brother
and successor Lang-dar-ma[925], who endeavoured to extirpate Lamaism.
Monasteries were destroyed, books burnt, Indian monks were driven out
of the country and many Lamas were compelled to become hunters or
butchers. But the persecution only lasted three years[926], for the
wicked king was assassinated by a Lama who has since been canonized by
the Church and the incident of his murder or punishment is still acted
in the mystery plays performed at Himis and other monasteries.
After the death of Lang-dar-ma Tibet ceased to exist as a united
kingdom and was divided among clans and chieftains. This was
doubtless connected with the collapse of Tibetan power in the Tarim
basin, but whether as effect or cause it is hard to say. The
persecution may have had a political motive: Lang-dar-ma may have
thought that the rise of monastic corporations, and their right to own
land and levy taxes were a menace to unity and military efficiency.
But the political confusion which followed on his death was not due to
the triumphant restoration of Lamaism. Its recovery was slow. The
interval during which Buddhism almost disappeared is estimated by
native authorities as from 73 to 108 years, and its subsequent revival
is treated as a separate period called phyi-dar or later diffusion in
contrast to the sṇa-dar or earlier diffusion. The silence of
ecclesiastical history during the tenth century confirms the gravity
of the catastrophe[927]. On the other hand the numerous translations
made in the ninth century were not lost and this indicates that there
were monasteries to preserve them, for instance Samye.
At the beginning of the eleventh century we hear of foreign monks arriving
from various countries. The chronicles[928] say that the chief workers in
the new diffusion were La-chen, Lo-chen, the royal Lama Yeśes Ḥod and
Atîśa. The first appears to have been a Tibetan but the pupil of a teacher
who had studied in Nepal. Lo-chen was a Kashmiri and several other
Kashmiri Lamas are mentioned as working in Tibet. Yeśes Ḥod was a king or
chieftain of mṄ̇̇̇̇̇̇̇̇̇a-ris in western Tibet who is said to have been
disgusted with the debased Tantrism which passed as Buddhism. He therefore
sent young Lamas to study in India and also invited thence learned monks.
The eminent Dharmapâla, a monk of Magadha who was on a pilgrimage in
Nepal, became his tutor. Yeśes Ḥod came to an unfortunate end. He was
taken captive by the Raja of Garlog, an enemy of Buddhism, and died in
prison. It is possible that this Raja was the ruler of Garhwal and a
Mohammedan. The political history of the period is far from clear, but
evidently there were numerous Buddhist schools in Bengal, Kashmir and
Nepal and numerous learned monks ready to take up their residence in
Tibet. This readiness has been explained as due to fear of the rising tide
of Islam, but was more probably the result of the revival of Buddhism in
Bengal during the eleventh century. The most illustrious of these pandits
was Atîśa[929] (980-1053), a native of Bengal, who was ordained at
Odontapuri and studied in Burma[930]. Subsequently he was appointed head
of the monastery of Vikramaśîla and was induced to visit Tibet in
1038[931]. He remained there until his death fifteen years later;
introduced a new calendar and inaugurated the second period of Tibetan
Buddhism which is marked by the rise of successive sects described as
reforms. It may seem a jest to call the teaching of Atîśa a reform, for he
professed the Kâlacakra, the latest and most corrupt form of Indian
Buddhism, but it was doubtless superior in discipline and coherency to the
native superstitions mixed with debased tantrism, which it replaced.
As in Japan during the eleventh and twelfth centuries many monasteries
were founded and grew in importance, and what might have happened in Japan
but for the somewhat unscrupulous prescience of Japanese statesmen
actually did happen in Tibet. Among the numerous contending chiefs none
was pre-eminent: the people were pugnacious but superstitious. They were
ready to build and respect when built the substantial structures required
to house monastic communities during the rigorous winter. Hence the
monasteries became the largest and safest buildings in the land,
possessing the double strength of walls and inviolability. The most
important was the Sakya monastery. Its abbots were of royal blood and not
celibate, and this dynasty of ecclesiastical statesmen practically ruled
Tibet at a critical period in the history of eastern Asia and indeed of
the world, namely, the conquests of Chinggiz[932] and the rise of the
Mongol Empire.
There is no evidence that Chinggiz was specially favourable to
Buddhism. His principle was one King and one God[933] and like other
princes of his race he thought of religions not as incompatible
systems but as different methods of worship of no more importance than
the different languages used in prayer. The destruction wrought by the
Mongol conquerors has often been noticed, but they had also an ample,
unifying temper which deserves recognition. China, Russia and Persia
all achieved a unity after the Mongol conquest which they did not
possess before, and though this unification may be described as a
protest and reaction, yet but for the Mongols and their treatment of
large areas as units it would not have been possible. The Mings could
not have united China before the Yüan dynasty as they did after it.
In spite of some statements to the contrary there is no proof that the
early Mongols invaded or conquered central Tibet, but Khubilai subdued
the eastern provinces and through the Lamaist hierarchy established a
special connection between Tibet and his dynasty. This connection
began even in the time of his predecessor, for the head Lama of the
Sakya monastery commonly known as Sakya Pandita (or Sa-skya-pan-cen)
was summoned to the Mongol Court in 1246-8, and cured the Emperor of
an illness[934]. This Lama was a man of great learning and influence.
He had received a double education both secular and religious, and was
acquainted with foreign languages. The favourable impression which he
created no doubt facilitated the brilliant achievements of his nephew
and successor, who is commonly known as Bashpa or Pagspa[935].
Khubilai Khan was not content with the vague theism of Central Asia
and wished to give his rude Mongols a definite religion with some
accessories of literature and manners. Confucianism was clearly too
scholastic for a fighting race and we may surmise that he rejected
Christianity as distant and unimportant, Mohammedanism as
inconveniently mixed with politics. But why did he prefer Lamaism to
Chinese Buddhism? The latter can hardly have been too austerely pure
to suit his ends, and Tibetan was as strange as Chinese to the
Mongols. But the Mongol Court had already been favourably impressed by
Tibetan Lamas and the Emperor probably had a just feeling that the
intellectual calibre of the Mongols and Tibetans was similar and also
that it was politic to conciliate the uncanny spiritual potentates who
ruled in a land which it was difficult to invade. At any rate he
summoned the abbot of Sakya to China in 1261 and was initiated by him
into the mysteries of Lamaism[936].
It is said that before Pagspa's birth the God Ganeśa showed his
father all the land of Tibet and told him that it would be the kingdom
of his son. In later life when he had difficulties at the Chinese
Court Mahâkâla appeared and helped him, and the mystery which he
imparted to Khubilai is called the Hevajravaśîtâ[937]. These
legends indicate that there was a large proportion of Sivaism in the
religion first taught to the Mongols, larger perhaps than in the
present Lamaism of Lhasa.
The Mongol historian Sanang Setsen relates[938] that Pagspa took a
higher seat than the Emperor when instructing him and on other
occasions sat on the same level. This sounds improbable, but it is
clear that he enjoyed great power and dignity. In China he received
the title of Kuo-Shih or instructor of the nation and was made the
head of all Buddhists, Lamaists and other. In Tibet he was recognized
as head of the Church and tributary sovereign, though it would appear
that the Emperor named a lay council to assist him in the government
and also had a commissioner in each of the three provinces. This was a
good political bargain and laid the foundations of Chinese influence
in a country which he could hardly have subdued by force.
Pagspa was charged by the Emperor to provide the Mongols with an
alphabet as well as a religion. For this purpose he used a square
form of the Tibetan letters[939], written not in horizontal but in
vertical lines. But the experiment was not successful. The characters
were neither easy to write nor graceful, and after Pagspa's death his
invention fell into disuse and was replaced by an enlarged and
modified form of the Uigur alphabet. This had already been employed
for writing Mongol by Sakya Pandita and its definitive form for that
purpose was elaborated by the Lama Chos-kyi-ḥod-zer in the reign of
Khubilai's successor. This alphabet is of Aramaic origin, and had
already been utilized by Buddhists for writing religious works, so its
application to Mongol was merely an extension of its general currency
in Asia[940].
Pagspa also superintended the preparation of a new edition of the
Tripitaka, not in Mongol but in Chinese. Among the learned editors
were persons acquainted with Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan and Uigur. An
interesting but natural feature of this edition is that it notes
whether the various Chinese texts are found in the Tibetan Canon or
not.
Khubilai further instituted a bureau of fine arts, the head of which
was a Lama called Aniko, skilled in both sculpture and painting. He
and his Chinese pupil Liu Yüan introduced into Peking various branches
of Tibetan art such as Buddhist images of a special type, ornamental
ironwork and gold tapestry. The Chinese at this period appear to have
regarded Tibetan art as a direct importation from India[941]. And no
doubt Tibetan art was founded on that of Nepal which in its turn came
from Bengal. Miniature painting is a characteristic of both. But in
later times the individuality of Tibet, shown alike in its monstrous
deities and its life-like portraits of Lamas, imposed itself on Nepal.
Indian and Tibetan temples are not alike. In the former there is
little painting but the walls and pillars are covered with a
superabundance of figures carved in relief: in Tibet pictures and
painted banners are the first thing to strike the eye, but carvings in
relief are rare.
It is hard to say to what extent the Mongols beyond such parts of
northern China as felt the direct influence of the imperial court were
converted to Lamaism. At any rate their conversion was only temporary
for, as will be related below, a reconversion was necessary in the
sixteenth century. It looks as if the first growth of Mongolian
Buddhism was part of a political system and collapsed together with
it. But so long as the Yüan dynasty reigned, Lamaist influence was
strong and the downfall of the Yüan was partly caused by their
subservience to the clergy and extravagant expenditure on religious
buildings and ceremonies. After the departure of Pagspa, other Lamas
held a high position at the Court of Peking such as Chos-kyi-hod-zer
and gYuṇ-ston rDo-rje-dpal. The latter was a distinguished exponent
of the Kâlacakra system and the teacher of the historian Bu-ston who
is said to have arranged the Tibetan Canon.
Although the Yüan dynasty heaped favours upon priests and monasteries,
it does not appear that religion flourished in Tibet during the
fourteenth century for at the end of that period the grave abuses
prevalent provoked the reforming zeal of Tsong-kha-pa. Prom 1270 to
1340 the abbots of Sakya were rulers of both Church and State, and we
hear that in 1320 they burned the rival monastery of Dikung. The
language of Sanang Setsen implies that each abbot was appointed or
invested by the Emperor[942] and their power declined with the Yüan
dynasty. Other monasteries increased in importance and a chief known
as Phagmodu[943] succeeded, after many years of fighting, in founding
a lay dynasty which ruled parts of Tibet until the seventeenth
century.
In 1368 the Ming superseded the Yüan. They were not professed
Buddhists to the same extent and they had no preference for Lamaism
but they were anxious to maintain good relations with Tibet and to
treat it as a friendly but vassal state. They accorded imperial
recognition (with an implication of suzerainty) to the dynasty of
Phagmodu and also to the abbots of eight monasteries. Though they were
doubtless glad to see Tibet a divided and contentious house, it does
not appear that they interfered actively in its affairs or did more
than recognize the _status quo_. In the time of Khubilai the
primacy of Sakya was a reality: seventy years later Sakya was only one
among several great monasteries.
The advent of the Ming dynasty coincided with the birth of
Tsong-kha-pa[944], the last reformer of Lamaism and organizer of the
Church as it at present exists. The name means the man of the
onion-bank, a valley near the monastery of Kumbum in the district of
Amdo, which lies on the western frontiers of the Chinese province of
Kansu. He became a monk at the age of seven and from the hair cut off
when he received the tonsure is said to have sprung the celebrated
tree of Kumbum which bears on its leaves wondrous markings[945].
According to the legend, his birth and infancy were attended by
miracles. He absorbed instruction from many teachers and it has been
conjectured that among them were Roman Catholic missionaries[946]. In
early manhood he proceeded to Tibet and studied at Sakya, Dikung and
finally at Lhasa. His reading convinced him that Lamaism as he found
it was not in harmony with the scriptures, so with the patronage of
the secular rulers and the support of the more earnest clergy he
successfully executed a thorough and permanent work of reform. This
took visible shape in the Gelugpa, the sect presided over by the Grand
Lama, which acquired such paramount importance in both ecclesiastical
and secular matters that it is justly termed the Established Church of
Tibet. It may also be conveniently termed the Yellow Church, yellow
being its special colour particularly for hats and girdles, in
opposition to the red or unreformed sects which use red for the same
purpose. Tsong-kha-pa's reforms took two principal lines. Firstly he
made monastic discipline stricter, insisting on celibacy and frequent
services of prayer: secondly he greatly reduced, although he did not
annihilate, the tantric and magical element in Lamaism. These
principles were perpetuated by an effective organization. He himself
founded the great monastery of Gandan near Lhasa and became its first
abbot. During his lifetime or shortly afterwards were founded three
others, Sera and Depung both near Lhasa and Tashilhunpo[947]. He
himself seems to have ruled simply in virtue of his personal authority
as founder, but his nephew and successor Geden-dub[948] claimed the
same right as an incarnation of the divine head of the Church, and
this claim was supported by a hierarchy which became overwhelmingly
powerful.
Tsong-kha-pa died in 1417 and is said to have been transfigured and
carried up into heaven while predicting to a great crowd the future
glories of his church. His mortal remains, however, preserved in a
magnificent mausoleum within the Gandan monastery, still receive great
veneration.
Among his more eminent disciples were Byams-chen-chos-rje and
mKhas-grub-rje who in Tibetan art are often represented as accompanying
him. The first played a considerable part in China. The Emperor Yung-Lo
sent an embassy to invite Tsong-kha-pa to his capital. Tsong-kha-pa felt
unable to go himself but sent his pupil to represent him.
Byams-chen-chos-rje was received with great honour[949]. The main object
of the Ming Emperors was to obtain political influence in Tibet through
the Lamas but in return the Lamas gained considerable prestige. The Kanjur
was printed in China (1410) and Byams-chen-chos-rje and his disciples were
recognized as prelates of the whole Buddhist Church within the Empire. He
returned to Tibet laden with presents and titles and founded the monastery
of Serra in 1417. Afterwards he went back to China and died there at the
age of eighty-four.
mKhas-grub-rje founded the monastery of Tashilhunpo and became its
abbot, being accepted as an incarnation of the Buddha Amitâbha. He was
eighth in the series of incarnations, which henceforth were localized
at Tashilhunpo, but the first is said to have been Subhûti, a disciple
of Gotama, and the second Mañjuśrîkirti, king of the country of
Śambhala[950].
The abbot of Tashilhunpo became the second personage in the ecclesiastical
and political hierarchy. The head of it was the prelate commonly known as
the Grand Lama and resident at Lhasa. Geden-dub[951], the nephew of
Tsong-kha-pa, is reckoned by common consent as the first Grand Lama
(though he seems not to have borne the title) and the first incarnation of
Avalokita as head of the Tibetan Church[952]. The Emperor Ch'êng Hua
(1365-1488) who had occasion to fight on the borders of Tibet confirmed
the position of these two sees as superior to the eight previously
recognized and gave the occupants a patent and seal. From this time they
bore the title of rGyal-po or king.
It was about this time that the theory of successive incarnations[953]
which is characteristic of Lamaism was developed and defined. At least
two ideas are combined in it. The first is that divine persons appear
in human form. This is common in Asia from India to Japan, especially
among the peoples who have accepted some form of Hindu religion. The
second is that in a school, sect or church there is real continuity of
life. In the unreformed sects of Tibet this was accomplished by the
simple principle of heredity so that celibacy, though undeniably
correct, seemed to snap the thread. But it was reunited by the theory
that a great teacher is reborn in the successive occupants of his
chair. Thus the historian Târanâtha is supposed to be reborn in the
hierarchs of Urga. But frequently the hereditary soul is identified
with a Buddha or Bodhisattva, as in the great incarnations of
Lhasa and Tashilhunpo. This dogma has obvious advantages. It imparts
to a Lamaist see a dignity which the papacy cannot rival but it is to
the advantage of the Curia rather than of the Pope for the incarnate
deity of necessity succeeds to his high office as an infant, is in
the hands of regents and not unfrequently dies when about twenty years
of age. These incarnations are not confined to the great sees of
Tibet. The heads of most large monasteries in Mongolia claim to be
living Buddhas and even in Peking there are said to be six.
The second Grand Lama[954] enjoyed a long reign, and set the hierarchy
in good order, for he distinguished strictly clerical posts, filled by
incarnations, from administrative posts. He was summoned to Peking by
the Emperor, but declined to go and the somewhat imperative embassy
sent to invite him was roughly handled. His successor, the third Grand
Lama bSod-nams[955], although less noticed by historians than the
fifth, perhaps did more solid work for the holy see of Lhasa than any
other of his line for he obtained, or at least received, the
allegiance of the Mongols who since the time of Khubilai had woefully
backslidden from the true faith.
As mentioned above, the conversion of the Mongols to Buddhism took
place when their capital was at Peking and chiefly affected those
resident in China. But when the Yüan dynasty had been dethroned and
the Mongols, driven back into their wilds, were frequently at war with
China, they soon relapsed into their original superstitions. About
1570 Altan[956] Khagan, the powerful chief of the Tümed, became
more nearly acquainted with Tibet, since some Lamas captured in a
border fray had been taken to his Court. After causing China much loss
and trouble he made an advantageous peace and probably formed the idea
(which the Manchus subsequently proved to be reasonable) that if the
Mongols were stronger they might repeat the conquests of Khubilai. The
Ming dynasty was clearly decadent and these mysterious priests of
Tibet appeared to be on the upward grade[957]. They might help him
both to become the undisputed chief of all the Mongol tribes and also
to reconquer Peking. So he sent an embassy to invite the Grand Lama's
presence, and when it was not successful he followed it with a second.
The Grand Lama then accepted and set out on his travels with great
pomp. According to the story he appeared to the astonished Mongols in
the guise of Avalokita with four arms (of which two remained folded on
his breast) and the imprint of his horse's hoofs showed the six mystic
syllables _om mani padme hum_. These wonders are so easily explicable
that they may be historical.
A great congregation was held near Lake Kokonor and Sanang Setsen
records an interesting speech made there by one of his ancestors
respecting the relations of Church and State, which he compared with
the sun and moon. The Lama bestowed on the Khagan high sounding titles
and received himself the epithet Dalai or Talai, the Mongol word for
sea, signifying metaphorically vast extent and profundity[958]. This
is the origin of the name Dalai Lama by which the Tibetan pontiff is
commonly known to Europeans. The hierarchy was divided into four
classes parallel to the four ranks of Mongol nobles: the use of meat
was restricted and the custom of killing men and horses at funerals
forbidden. The observance of Buddhist festivals was made compulsory
and native idols were destroyed, but the deities which they
represented were probably identified with others in the new pantheon.
The Grand Lama specially recommended to the Mongols the worship of the
Blue Mahâkâla, a six armed representation of Śiva standing on a
figure of Ganeśa, and he left with them a priest who was esteemed
an incarnation of Mañjuśrî, and for whom a temple and monastery
were built in Kuku-khoto.
His Holiness then returned to Tibet, but when Altan Khagan died in
1583 he made a second tour in Mongolia in order to make sure of the
allegiance of the new chiefs. He also received an embassy from the
Chinese Emperor Wan-Li, who conferred on him the same titles that
Khubilai had given to Pagspa. The alliance between the Tibetans and
Mongols was naturally disquieting to the Ming dynasty and they sought
to minimize it by showing extreme civility to the Lamas.
This Grand Lama died at the age of forty-seven, and it is significant
that the next incarnation appeared in the Mongol royal house, being a
great-grandson of Altan Khagan. Until he was fourteen he lived in
Mongolia and when he moved to Lhasa a Lama was appointed to be his
vicar and Primate of all Mongolia with residence at Kuren or
Urga[959]. The prelates of this line are considered as incarnations of
the historian Târanâtha[960]. In common language they bear the name of
rJe-btsun-dam-pa but are also called Maidari Khutuktu, that is
incarnation of Maitreya. About this time the Emperor of China issued a
decree, which has since been respected, that these hierarchs must be
reborn in Tibet, or in other words that they must not reappear in a
Mongol family for fear of uniting religion and patriotism too closely.
Lozang[961], the fifth Grand Lama, is by common consent the most
remarkable of the pontifical line. He established the right of himself
and his successors--or, as he might have said, of himself in his
successive births--to the temporal and ecclesiastical sovereignty of
Tibet: he built the Potala and his dealings with the Mongols and
the Emperor of China are of importance for general Asiatic history.
From the seventeenth century onwards there were four factors in
Tibetan politics.
1. The Gelugpa or Yellow Church, very strong but anxious to become
stronger both by increasing its temporal power and by suppressing
other sects. Its attitude towards Chinese and Mongols showed no
prejudice and was dictated by policy.
2. The Tibetan chiefs and people, on the whole respectful to the
Yellow Church but not single-hearted nor forgetful of older sects:
averse to Chinese and prone to side with Mongols.
3. The Mongols, conscious of their imperfect civilization and anxious
to improve themselves by contact with the Lamas. As a nation they
wished to repeat their past victories over China, and individual
chiefs wished to make themselves the head of the nation. People and
princes alike respected all Lamas.
4. The Chinese, apprehensive of the Mongols and desirous to keep them
tranquil, caring little for Lamaism in itself but patiently determined
to have a decisive voice in ecclesiastical matters, since the Church
of Lhasa had become a political power in their border lands.
Lo-zang was born as the son of a high Tibetan official about 1616 and
was educated in the Depung monastery under the supervision of
Chos-kyi-Gyal-tsan, abbot of Tashilhunpo and a man of political
weight. The country was then divided into Khamdo, Wu and Tsang, or
Eastern, Central and Western Tibet, and in each province there ruled a
king of the Phagmodu dynasty. In Central Tibet, and specially at
Lhasa, the Gelugpa was the established church and accepted by the king
but in the other provinces there was much religious strife and the
older sects were still predominant. About 1630 the regent of Tsang
captured Lhasa and made himself sovereign of all Tibet. He was a
follower of the Sakya sect and his rule was a menace to the authority
and even to the existence of the Yellow Church, which for some years
suffered much tribulation. When the young Grand Lama grew up, he and
his preceptor determined to seek foreign aid and appealed to Gushi
Khan[962]. This prince was a former pupil of Chos-kyi-Gyal-tsan
and chief of the Oelöt, the ancestors of the Kalmuks and other western
tribes, but then living near Kokonor. He was a staunch member of the
Yellow Church and had already made it paramount in Khamdo which he
invaded in 1638. He promptly responded to the appeal, invaded Tibet,
took the regent prisoner, and, after making himself master of the
whole country, handed over his authority to the Grand Lama, retaining
only the command of his Mongol garrisons. This arrangement was
advantageous to both parties. The Grand Lama not only greatly
increased his ecclesiastical prestige but became a temporal sovereign
of considerable importance. Gushi, who had probably no desire to
reside permanently in the Snow Land, received all the favours which a
grateful Pope could bestow on a king and among the superstitious
Mongols these had a real value. Further the Oelöt garrisons which
continued to occupy various points in Tibet gave him a decisive voice
in the affairs of the country, if there was ever a question of using
force.
The Grand Lamas had hitherto resided in the Depung monastery but
Lo-zang now moved to the hill of Marpori, the former royal residence
and began to build on it the Potala[963] palace which, judging from
photographs, must be one of the most striking edifices in the world,
for its stately walls continue the curves of the mountain side and
seem to grow out of the living rock. His old teacher was given the
title of Panchen Rinpoche, which has since been borne by the abbots of
Tashilhunpo, and the doctrine that the Grand Lamas of Lhasa and
Tashilhunpo are respectively incarnations of Avalokita and Amitâbha
was definitely promulgated[964].
The establishment of the Grand Lama as temporal ruler of Tibet
coincided with the advent of the Manchu dynasty (1644). The Emperor
and the Lama had everything to gain from friendly relations and their
negotiations culminated in a visit which Lo-zang paid to Peking in
1652-3. He was treated as an independent sovereign and received from
the Emperor a long title containing the phrase "Self-existent Buddha,
Universal Ruler of the Buddhist faith." In return he probably
undertook to use his influence with the Mongols to preserve peace and
prevent raids on China.
After his return to Tibet, he appears to have been a real as well as a
nominal autocrat for his preceptor and Gushi Khan both died, and the
new Manchu dynasty had its hands full. His chief adviser was the
Desi[965] or Prime Minister, supposed to be his natural son. In 1666
the great Emperor K'ang-hsi succeeded to the throne: and shortly
afterwards the restlessness of the Mongol Princes began to inspire the
Chinese Court with apprehension. In 1680 Lo-zang died but his death
was a state secret. It was apparently known in Tibet and an infant
successor was selected but the Desi continued to rule in Lo-zang's
name and even the Emperor of China had no certain knowledge of his
suspected demise but probably thought that the fiction of his
existence was the best means of keeping the Mongols in order. It was
not until 1696 that his death and the accession of a youth named
Thsang-yang Gya-thso were made public.
But the young Grand Lama, who owing to the fiction that his
predecessor was still alive had probably been brought up less strictly
than usual, soon began to inspire alarm at Peking for he showed
himself wilful and intelligent. He wrote love songs which are still
popular and his licentious behaviour was quite out of harmony with the
traditions of the holy see. In 1701, under joint pressure from the
Chinese and Mongols, he resigned his ecclesiastical rights and handed
over the care of the Church to the abbot of Tashilhunpo, while
retaining his position as temporal ruler. But the Chinese still felt
uneasy and in 1705 succeeded in inducing him to undertake a journey to
Peking. When he got as far as Mongolia he died of either dropsy or
assassination. The commander of the Oelöt garrisons in Tibet was a
friend of the Chinese, and at once produced a new Grand Lama called
Yeśes, a man of about twenty-five, who claimed to be the true
reincarnation of the fifth Grand Lama, the pretensions of the
dissolute youth who had just died being thus set aside. It suited the
Chinese to deal with an adult, who could be made to understand
that he had received and held his office only through their good will,
but the Tibetans would have none of this arrangement. They clung to
the memory of the dissolute youth and welcomed with enthusiasm the
news that he had reappeared in Li-t'ang as a new-born child, who was
ultimately recognized as the seventh Grand Lama named Kalzang. The
Chinese imprisoned the infant with his parents in the monastery of
Kumbum in Kansu and gave all their support to Yeśes. For the better
control of affairs in Lhasa two Chinese Agents were appointed to
reside there with the Manchu title of Amban[966].
But the Tibetans would not accept the rule of Yeśes and in 1717 the
revolutionary party conspired with the Oelöt tribes of Ili to put
Kalzang on the throne by force. The troops sent to take the holy child
were defeated by the Chinese but those which attacked Lhasa were
completely successful. Yeśes abdicated and the city passed into the
possession of the Mongols. The Chinese Government were greatly alarmed
and determined to subdue Tibet. Their first expedition was a failure
but in 1720 they sent a second and larger, and also decided to install
the youthful Kalzang as Grand Lama, thus conciliating the religious
feelings of the Tibetans. The expedition met with little difficulty
and the result of it was that China became suzerain of the whole
country. By imperial edict the young Grand Lama was recognized as
temporal ruler, the four ministers or Kalön were given Chinese titles,
and garrisons were posted to keep open the road from China. But the
Tibetans were still discontented. In 1727 a rebellion, instigated it
was said by the family of the Grand Lama, broke out, and the Prime
Minister was killed. This rising was not permanently successful and
the Chinese removed the Grand Lama to the neighbourhood of their
frontier. They felt however that it was unsafe to give ground for
suspicion that they were ill-treating him and in 1734 he was
reinstated in the Potala. But the dislike of the Tibetans for Chinese
supervision was plain. In 1747 there was another rebellion. The
population of Lhasa rose and were assisted by Oelöt troops who
suddenly arrived on the scene. Chinese rule was saved only by the
heroism of the two Chinese Agents, who invited the chief conspirators
to a meeting and engaged them in personal combat. They lost their
own lives but killed the principal rebels. The Chinese then
abolished the office of Prime Minister, increased their garrison and
gave the Agents larger powers.
About 1758 the Grand Lama died and was succeeded by an infant called
Jambal. The real authority was wielded by the Panchen Lama who acted
as regent and was so influential that the Emperor Ch'ien-Lung insisted
on his visiting Peking[967]. He had a good reception and probably
obtained some promise that the government of Tibet would be left more
in the hands of the Church but he died of smallpox in Peking and
nothing came of his visit except a beautiful tomb and an epitaph
written by the Emperor. After his death a new complication appeared.
The prelates of the Red Church encouraged an invasion of the Gurkhas
of Nepal in the hope of crushing the Yellow Church. The upshot was
that the Chinese drove out the Gurkhas but determined to establish a
more direct control. The powers of the Agents were greatly increased
and not even the Grand Lama was allowed the right of memorializing the
throne, but had to report to the Agents and ask their orders.
In 1793 Ch'ien-Lung issued a remarkable edict regulating the
appearance of incarnations which, as he observed, had become simply
the hereditary perquisites of certain noble Mongol families. He
therefore ordered that when there was any question of an incarnation
the names of the claimants to the distinction should be written on
slips of paper and placed in a golden bowl: that a religious service
should be held and at its close a name be drawn from the bowl in the
presence of the Chinese Agents and the public. The child whose name
should be drawn was to be recognized as the true incarnation but
required investiture by an imperial patent.
A period of calm followed, and when the Grand Lama died in 1804 the
Tibetans totally neglected this edict and selected a child born in
eastern Tibet. The Chinese Court, desirous of avoiding unnecessary
trouble, approved[968] the choice on the ground that the infant's
precocious ability established his divine character but when he
died in 1815 and an attempt was made to repeat this irregularity, a
second edict was published, insisting that the names of at least three
candidates must be placed in the golden urn and that he whose name
should be first drawn must be Grand Lama. This procedure was followed
but the child elected by the oracle of the urn died before he was
twenty and another infant was chosen as his successor in 1838. As a
result the Lama who was regent acquired great power and also
unpopularity. His tyranny caused the Tibetans to petition the Emperor;
and His Majesty sent a new Agent to investigate his conduct. Good
reason was shown for holding him responsible for the death of the
Grand Lama in 1838 and for other misdeeds. The Emperor then degraded
and banished him and, what is more singular, forbade him to reappear
in a human reincarnation.
The reigns of Grand Lamas in the nineteenth century have mostly been
short. Two others were selected in 1858 and 1877 respectively. The
latter who is the present occupant of the post was the son of a
Tibetan peasant: he was duly chosen by the oracle of the urn and
invested by the Emperor. In 1893 he assumed personal control of the
administration and terminated a regency which seems to have been
oppressive and unpopular. The British Government were anxious to
negotiate with him about Sikhim and other matters, but finding it
impossible to obtain answers to their communications sent an
expedition to Lhasa in 1904. The Grand Lama then fled to Urga, in
which region he remained until 1907. In the autumn of 1908 he was
induced to visit Peking where he was received with great ceremony but,
contrary to the precedent established when the fifth Grand Lama
attended Court, he was obliged to kneel and kotow before the Empress
Dowager. Neither could he obtain the right to memorialize the throne,
but was ordered to report to the Agents. The Court duly recognized his
religious position. On the birthday of the Empress he performed a
service for her long life, at which Her Majesty was present. It was
not wholly successful, for a week or two later he officiated at her
funeral. At the end of 1908 he left for Lhasa. He visited India in
1910 but this created dissatisfaction at Peking. In the same year[969]
a decree was issued deposing him from his spiritual as well as his
temporal powers and ordering the Agents to seek out a new child by
drawing lots from the golden urn. This decree was probably _ultra
vires_ and certainly illogical, for if the Chinese Government
recognized the Lama as an incarnation, they could not, according to
the accepted theory, replace him by another incarnation before his
death. And if they regarded him as a false incarnation, they should
have ordered the Agents to seek out not a child but a man born about
the time that the last Grand Lama died. At any rate the Tibetans paid
no attention to the decree.
The early deaths of Grand Lamas in the nineteenth century have
naturally created a presumption that they were put out of the way and
contemporary suspicion accused the regent in 1838. There is no
evidence that the deaths of the other three were regarded as unnatural
but the earlier Grand Lamas as well as the abbots of Tashilhunpo lived
to a good age. On the other hand the Grand Lamas of Urga are said to
die young. If the pontiffs of some lines live long and those of others
die early, the inference is not that the life of a god incarnate is
unhealthy but that in special cases special circumstances interfere
with it, and on the whole there are good grounds for suspecting foul
play. But it is interesting to note that most Europeans who have made
the acquaintance of high Lamas speak in praise of their character and
intelligence. So Manning (the friend of Charles Lamb) of the ninth
Grand Lama (1811), Bogle of the Tashi Lama about 1778, Sven Hedin of
his successor in 1907, and Waddell of the Lama Regent in 1904.
The above pages refer to the history of Lamaism in Tibet and Mongolia.
It also spread to China, European Russia, Ladak, Sikhim and Bhutan. In
China it is confined to the north and its presence is easily
explicable by the genuine enthusiasm of Khubilai and the encouragement
given on political grounds by the Ming and Manchu dynasties. Further,
several Mongol towns such as Kalgan and Kuku-khoto are within the
limits of the eighteen provinces.
The Kalmuks who live in European Russia are the descendants of tribes
who moved westwards from Dzungaria in the seventeenth century. Many of
them left Russia and returned to the east in 1771, but a considerable
number remained behind, chiefly between the Volga and the Don, and
the population professing Lamaism there is now reckoned at about
100,000.
Buddhist influences may have been at work in Ladak from an early
period. In later times it can be regarded as a dependency of Tibet, at
any rate for ecclesiastical purposes, for it formed part of Tibet
until the disruption of the kingdom in the tenth century and it
subsequently accepted the sovereignty of Lhasa in religious and
sometimes in political matters. Concerning the history of Bhutan, I
have been able to discover but little. The earliest known inhabitants
are called Tephu and the Tibetans are said to have conquered them
about 1670. Lamaism probably entered the country at this time, if not
earlier[970]. At any rate it must have been predominant in 1774 when
the Tashi Lama used his good offices to conclude peace between the
Bhutiyas and the East India Company. The established church however is
not the Gelugpa but the Dugpa, which is a subdivision of the
Kar-gyu-pa. There are two rulers in Bhutan, the Dharmarâja or
spiritual and the Debrâja or temporal. The former is regarded as an
incarnation of the first class, though it is not clear of what
deity[971].
The conversion of Sikhim is ascribed to a saint named Latsün Ch'embo,
who visited it about 1650 with two other Lamas. They associated with
themselves a native chief whom they ordained as a Lama and made king.
All four then governed Sikhim. Though Latsün Ch'embo is represented as
a friend of the fifth Grand Lama, the two sects at present found in
Sikhim are the Nying-ma-pa, the old unreformed style of Lamaism, and
the Karmapa, a branch of the Kar-gyu-pa, analogous to the Dugpa of
Bhutan. The principal monasteries are at Pemiongchi (Peme-yang-tse)
and Tashiding[972].
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 910: Tibetan orthography Sroṇ-btsan-sgam-po. It is hard
to decide what is the best method of representing Tibetan words in
Latin letters:
(_a_) The orthography differs from the modern pronunciation more than
in any other language, except perhaps English, but it apparently
represents an older pronunciation and therefore has historical value.
Also, a word can be found in a Tibetan dictionary only if the native
spelling is faithfully reproduced. On the other hand readers
interested in oriental matters know many words in a spelling which is
a rough representation of the modern pronunciation. It seems pedantic
to write bKaẖ-ẖgyur and ẖBras-spuṇs when the best known
authorities speak of Kanjur and Debung. On the whole, I have decided
to represent the commoner words by the popular orthography as given by
Rockhill, Waddell and others while giving the Tibetan spelling in a
foot-note. But when a word cannot be said to be well known even among
Orientalists I have reproduced the Tibetan spelling.
(_b_) But it is not easy to reproduce this spelling clearly and
consistently. On the whole I have followed the system used by Sarat
Chandra Das in his Dictionary. It is open to some objections, as, for
instance, that the sign h has more than one value, but the more
accurate method used by Grünwedel in his _Mythologie_ is extremely
hard to read. My transcription is as follows in the order of the
Tibetan consonants.
k, kh, g, ṇ, c, oh, j, ny.
t, th, d, n, p, ph, b, m.
ts, ths, ds, w.
zh, z, ḥ, y.
r, l, ś, s, h.
Although tsh is in some respects preferable to represent an aspirated
ts, yet it is liable to be pronounced as in the English words _hat
shop_, and perhaps ths is on the whole better.]
[Footnote 911: See Waddell, _Buddhism of Tibet_, p. 19.]
[Footnote 912: It has been argued (_e.g., J.R.A.S._, 1903, p. 11) that
discoveries in Central Asia indicate that Tibetan civilization and
therefore Tibetan Buddhism are older than is generally supposed. But
recent research shows that Central Asian MSS. of even the eighth
century say little about Buddhism, whatever testimony they may bear to
civilization.]
[Footnote 913: See Hoernle MS. _Remains found in E. Turkestan_, 1916,
pp. xvii ff., and Francke, _Epig. Ind_. XI. 266 ff., and on the other
side Laufer in _J.A.O.S._ 1918, pp. 34 ff. There is a considerable
difference between the printed and cursive forms of the Tibetan
alphabet. Is it possible that they have different origins and that the
former came from Bengal, the latter from Khotan?]
[Footnote 914: There were some other streams of Buddhism, for the king
had a teacher called Sântarakshita who advised him to send for
Padma-Sambhava and Padma-Sambhava was opposed by Chinese bonzes.]
[Footnote 915: The Pad-ma-than-yig. It indicates some acquaintance
with Islam and mentions Hulugu Khan. See _T'oung Pao_, 1896, pp. 526
ff. See for a further account Grünwedel, _Mythologie_, p. 47, Waddell,
_Buddhism_, p. 380, and the Tibetan text edited and translated by
Laufer under the title _Der Roman einer tibetischen Königin_,
especially pp. 250 ff. Also E. Schlagintweit, "Die Lebensbeschreibung
von Padma-Sambhava," _Abhand. k. bayer. Akad._ I. CL. xxi. Bd. ii.
Abth. 419-444, and _ib._ I. CL. xxii. Bd. iii. Abth. 519-576.]
[Footnote 916: Much of Chinese popular religion has the same
character. See De Groot, _Religious System of China_, vol. VI. pp.
929, 1187. "The War against Spectres."]
[Footnote 917: Both he and the much later Saskya Pandita are said to
have understood the Bruzha language, for which see _T'oung Pao_,
1908, pp. 1-47.]
[Footnote 918: Or bSam-yas. See Waddell, _Buddhism_, p. 266, for an
account of this monastery at the present day.]
[Footnote 919: The Tibetan word bLama means upper and is properly
applicable to the higher clergy only though commonly used of all.]
[Footnote 920: He was temporarily banished owing to the intrigues of
the Queen, who acted the part of Potiphar's wife, but he was
triumphantly restored. A monk called Vairocana is also said to have
introduced Buddhism into Khotan from Kashmir, but at a date which
though uncertain must be considerably earlier than this.]
[Footnote 921: See _Journal of Buddhist Text Society_, 1893, p. 5. I
imagine that by Hoshang Mahâyâna the followers of Bodhidharma are
meant.]
[Footnote 922: _J.R.A.S._ 1914, pp. 37-59.]
[Footnote 923: See Rockhill, _Life of the Buddha_, p. 225.]
[Footnote 924: Various dates are given for his death, ranging from 838
to 902. See Rockhill (_Life of the Buddha_), p. 225, and Bushell in
_J.R.A.S._ 1880, pp. 440 ff. But the treaty of 822 was made in his
reign.]
[Footnote 925: g Lan-dar-ma.]
[Footnote 926: But see for other accounts Rockhill (_Life of the
Buddha_), p. 226. According to Csoma de Körös's tables the date of the
persecution was 899.]
[Footnote 927: See the chronological table in Waddell's _Buddhism_, p.
576. Not a single Tibetan event is mentioned between 899 and 1002.]
[Footnote 928: Pag Som Jon Zang. Ed. Sarat Chandra Das, p. 183.]
[Footnote 929: Or Dîpaṇkara Śrîjñâna. See for a life of him
_Journal of Buddhist Text Society_, 1893, "Indian Pandits in Tibet,"
pp. 7 ff.]
[Footnote 930: Suvarṇadvîpa, where he studied, must be Thaton and
it is curious to find that it was a centre of tantric learning.]
[Footnote 931: From 1026 onwards see the chronological tables of
Sum-pa translated by Sarat Chandra Das in _J.A.S.B._ 1889, pp. 40-82.
They contain many details, especially of ecclesiastical biography. The
Tibetan system of computing time is based on cycles of sixty years
beginning it would seem not in 1026 but 1027, so that in many dates
there is an error of a year. See Pelliot, _J.A._ 1913, I. 633, and
Laufer, _T'oung Pao_, 1913, 569.]
[Footnote 932: Or Jenghiz Khan. The form in the text seems to be the
more correct.]
[Footnote 933: Tegri or Heaven. This monotheism common to the ancient
Chinese, Turks and Mongols did not of course exclude the worship of
spirits.]
[Footnote 934: Guyuk was Khagan at this time but the _Mongol History
of Sanang Setsen_ (Schmidt, p. 3) says that the Lama was summoned by
the Khagan Godan. It seems that Godan was never Khagan, but as an
influential prince he may have sent the summons.]
[Footnote 935: ḥPhagspa (corrupted in Mongol to Bashpa) is merely a
title equivalent to Ayra in Sanskrit. His full style was ḥPhagspa
bLo-gros-rgyal-mthsan.]
[Footnote 936: By abhiśekha or sprinkling with water.]
[Footnote 937: Vaśitâ is a magical formula which compels the
obedience of spirits or natural forces. Hevajra (apparently the same
as Heruka) is one of the fantastic beings conceived as manifestations
of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas made for a special purpose, closely
corresponding, as Grünwedel points out, to the manifestations of
Śiva.]
[Footnote 938: Schmidt's edition, p. 115.]
[Footnote 939: It is given in Isaac Taylor's _The Alphabet_, vol. II.
p. 336. See also _J.R.A.S._ 1910, pp. 1208-1214.]
[Footnote 940: _E.g._ see the Tisastvustik, a sûtra in a Turkish
dialect and Uigur characters found at Turfan and published in
_Bibliotheca Buddhica_, XII.]
[Footnote 941: See Kokka, No. 311, 1916, _Tibetan Art in China_.]
[Footnote 942: _Sanang Setsen_, p. 121. The succession of the Sakya
abbots is not clear but the primacy continued in the family. See
Köppen, II. p. 105.]
[Footnote 943: Strictly speaking a place-name.]
[Footnote 944: The Tibetan orthography is bTsoṇ (or
Tsoṇ)-kha-pa. He was called rJe-rin-po-che bLo-bzaṇ-grags-pa in
Tibetan and Arya-mahâratna Sumatikîrti in Sanskrit. The Tibetan
orthography of the monastery is sKu-ḥbum or hundred thousand
pictures. See, for accounts of his life, Sarat Chandra Das in
_J.A.S.B._ 1882, pp. 53-57 and 127. Huth, _Buddhismus in der
Mongolei_, ii. pp. 175 ff.]
[Footnote 945: There is some difference of statement as to whether
these markings are images of Tsong-kha-pa or Tibetan characters. Hue,
though no Buddhist, thought them miraculous. See his _Travels in
Tartary_, vol. ii. chap. ii. See also Rockhill, _Land of the Lamas_,
p. 67, and Filchner, _Das Kloster Kumbum_, chap. vi.]
[Footnote 946: But the tradition mentioned by Hue that he was
instructed by a long-nosed stranger from the west, has not been found
in any Tibetan biography.]
[Footnote 947: Tibetan orthography writes dGaḥ-ldan, Se-ra,
hBras-spuns and bKra-śis-Lhun-po. dGaḥ-ldan, the happy, is a
translation of the Sanskrit Tushita or Paradise. Tsong-kha-pa's
reformed sect was originally called dGaḥ-lugs-pa or those who
follow the way of dGa[.]-ldan. But this possibly suggested those who
pursue pleasure and the name was changed to dGe-lugs-pa or those of
the virtuous order.]
[Footnote 948: dGe-'dun grub.]
[Footnote 949: He was not the same as Ha-li-ma (see p. 277) of whom more
is heard in Chinese accounts. Ha-li-ma or Karma was fifth head of the
Karma-pa school and was invited on his own merits to China where he died
in 1426 or 1414. See Huth, _l.c._ vol. I. p. 109 and vol. II. p. 171. Also
Köppen, _die Rel. des Buddha_, II. 107. Byams-chen-chos-rje was invited as
the representative of Tsong-ka-pa. See Huth, _l.c._ vol. I. p. 120, vol.
II. p. 129.]
[Footnote 950: See for a list of the Lamas of Tashilhunpo and their
lives _J.A.S.B._ 1882, pp. 15-52. The third incarnation was Abhayakara
Gupta, a celebrated Bengali Pandit who flourished in the reign of
Râmapâla. This appears to have been about 1075-1115, but there is
considerable discrepancy in the dates given.]
[Footnote 951: See for his life _J.A.S.B._ 1882, p. 24.]
[Footnote 952: Tsong-kha-pa is not reckoned in this series of
incarnations, for firstly he was regarded as an incarnation of
Mañjuśrî and secondly Geden-dub was born before his death and
hence could not represent the spirit which dwelt in him.]
[Footnote 953: Tibetan sPrul-pa, Mongol Khubilghan. Both are
translations of the Sanskrit Nirmâna and the root idea is not
incarnation but transformation in an illusive form.]
[Footnote 954: The following list of Grand Lamas is taken from
Grünwedel's _Mythologie_, p. 206. Their names are followed by the
title rGya-mThso and in many cases the first part of the name is a
title.
1. dGe-ḥdun-dub, 1391-1478.
2. dGe-ḥdun, 1479-1541.
3. bSod-nams, 1543-1586.
4. Yon-tan, 1587-1614.
5. Ṅag-dbaṇ bLo-bzaṇ, 1617-1680.
6. Rin-chen Thsaṇs-dbyaṇs, 1693-1703.
7. bLo-bzaṇ sKal-dan, 1705-1758.
8. bLo-bzaṇ ḥJam-dpal, 1759-1805.
9. bLo-bzaṇ Luṇ-rtogs, 1806-1815.
10. bLo-bzaṇ Thsul-khrims, 1817-1837.
11. bLo-bzaṇ dGe-dmu, 1838-1855.
12. bLo-bzaṇ Phrin-las, 1856-1874.
13. Ṅag-dbaṇ bLo-bzaṇ Thub-ldam, 1875.
]
[Footnote 955: See for an account of his doings Sanang Setsen, chap.
IX. Huth, _Geschichte_, II. pp. 200 ff. Köppen, II. pp. 134 ff. It
would appear that about 1545 northwestern Tibet was devastated by
Mohammedans from Kashgar. See Waddell, _Buddhism_, p. 583.]
[Footnote 956: Also known as Yenta or Anda. See, for some particulars
about him, Parker in N. China Branch of _R.A.S._ 1913, pp. 92 ff.]
[Footnote 957: Naturally the narrative is not told without miraculous
embellishment, including the singular story that Altan who suffered
from the gout used to put his feet every month into the ripped up body
of a man or horse and bathe them in the warm blood. Avalokita appeared
to him when engaged in this inhuman cure and bade him desist and atone
for his sins.]
[Footnote 958: In Tibetan rGya-mThso. Compare the Chinese expression
hai liang (sea measure) meaning capacious or broad minded. The Khagan
received the title of lHai thsaṇs-pa chen-po equivalent to
Divyamahâbrahmâ.]
[Footnote 959: The correct Mongol names of this place seem to be Örgö
and Kürä. The Lama's name was bSam-pa rGya-mThso.]
[Footnote 960: He finished his history in 1608 and lived some time
longer so that bSam-pa rGya-mThso cannot have been an incarnation of
him.]
[Footnote 961: This is an accepted abbreviation of his full name
Ṅag-dbaṇ bLo-zaṇ rGya-mThso. Ṅag-dbaṇ is an epithet meaning
eloquent.]
[Footnote 962: The name is variously written Gushi, Gushri, Gus'ri,
etc., and is said to stand for Guruśrî. The name of the tribe also
varies: Oirad and Oegeled are both found.]
[Footnote 963: So called from the sacred hill in India on which
Avalokita lives. The origin of the name is doubtful but before the
time of Hsüan Chuang it had come to be applied to a mountain in South
India.]
[Footnote 964: Some European authorities consider that Lo-zang
invented this system of incarnations. Native evidence seems to me to
point the other way, but it must be admitted that if he was the first
to claim for himself this dignity it would be natural for him to claim
it for his predecessors also and cause ecclesiastical history to be
written accordingly.]
[Footnote 965: sDe-srid.]
[Footnote 966: It is said that all Ambans were Manchus.]
[Footnote 967: See E. Ludwig, _The visit of the Teshoo Lama to
Peking_, Tientsin Press, 1904. See also _J.A.S.B._ 1882, pp. 29-52.]
[Footnote 968: See the curious edict of Chia Ch'ing translated by
Waddell in _J.R.A.S._ 1910, pp. 69 ff. The Chinese Government were
disposed to discredit the sixth, seventh and eighth incarnations and
to pass straight from the fifth Grand Lama to the ninth.]
[Footnote 969: See for a translation of this curious decree, _North
China Herald_ of March 4th, 1910.]
[Footnote 970: In the List of the Bhutan Hierarchs given by Waddell
(_Buddhism_, p. 242) it is said that the first was contemporary with
the third Grand Lama, 1543-1580.]
[Footnote 971: According to Waddell (_Buddhism_, p. 242) he appears to
be a rebirth of Dupgani Sheptun, a Lama greatly respected by the
Tibetan invaders of Bhutan. For some account of the religion of Bhutan
in the early 19th century, see the article by Davis in _T.R.A.S._ vol.
II. 1830, p. 491.]
[Footnote 972: The fullest account of Sikhimese Buddhism is given by
Waddell in the _Gazetteer of Sikhim_, 1894. See also Rémy, _Pèlerinage
au Monastère de Pemmiontsi_, 1880; Silacara "Buddhism in Sikkim,"
_Buddhist Review_, 1916, p. 97.]